I'm loath to get into these sorts of navel-gazing discussions that blogs always seem to inspire, but I cannot help but take issue with Matthew Yglesias, who, in refuting my calls for NATO intervention in Darfur, groups me in with the "people who are interested in Darfur who don't normally write about humanitarian issues or Africa, but who do frequently write in support of militarism and in derogation of the UN." That's funny, I've actually reported from Africa and written a lot about it over the past year. In fact, the Zimbabwean state newspaper went after me by name a few weeks ago. Granted, I've focused mainly on southern Africa and not Sudan, but Yglesias doesn't seem to care about such distinctions.
As per usual, he then attacks the motives of those advocating policies with which he disagrees, rather than the policies themselves. Sorry, Matt, I support NATO intervention because I sincerely believe it is the only hope left for Darfur, not because I'm "interested in wielding Darfur as a bludgeon against liberals, the UN, Arabs, etc." Perhaps Matt should go to Africa--or do any reporting on anything--before casting aspersions about other people so carelessly.
Michael Weiss of the fun and irreverent Jewcy has some more to say.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.